QB vs QB Debates. Who is HOF? Who Isn't? Who is better?

JCTO

I propose all QB debates should be put in its own thread. Think Brady is better than Rodgers and vice versa? Do rings matter?

And Go......

StringerBell

For my money Brady is the greatest of all time.

There can be debate of course, but ultimately it is very hard to get away from the fact.

keano_afc

I'd take Rodgers over Brady any day of the week. Especially Sunday.

adrian522

Wish people would substitute "Of all Time" for "In the time I've been watching Football" or whatever.

There is a reason why you have to wait 5 years to get into the Hall of Fame, we have a tendency to have more favorable opinions on more recent players, demonstrated perfectly by the recent debate on the general thread.

eagle eye

keano_afc wrote: »

I'd take Rodgers over Brady any day of the week. Especially Sunday.

So you'd take Rodgers playing on the road in the playoffs over Brady in Foxboro?

Magico Gonzalez

The answer is Joe Montana. Put away the stats, because back then a WR didn't have anywhere near the same protection. 3 super bowl MVPs, never threw a pick in the Superbowl. Probably would have played in more superbowls if the giants hadn't stopped him 3 times, getting stopped by LT and friends is understandable given he didn't have the same protection Brady has.

There's a reason these discussions usually come down as Brady vs Joe, for me it's still Montana. Rodgers could get himself into that discussion but he is not there yet.

its hard to compare any pre cap qb to current qb also i have not seen enough of the likes of montana to give a proper comparison of the abs i have seen i think Brady is clearly head and shoulder above everyone from a legacy perspective and rodgers is probably the next guy that can compete with him.

eagle eye

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

The answer is Joe Montana. Put away the stats, because back then a WR didn't have anywhere near the same protection. 3 super bowl MVPs, never threw a pick in the Superbowl. Probably would have played in more superbowls if the giants hadn't stopped him 3 times, getting stopped by LT and friends is understandable given he didn't have the same protection Brady has.

There's a reason these discussions usually come down as Brady vs Joe, for me it's still Montana. Rodgers could get himself into that discussion but he is not there yet.

Thing about Montana is that he had two of the best receivers in the game at the time for two of those Superbowls in Ray Rice and John Taylor. He really was part of a superstar team on both sides of the ball.

When people talk about the greatest players of all time Montana, Rice and Ronnie Lott will be at the top end of the argument for the best ever at their position.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

Thing about Montana is that he had two of the best receivers in the game at the time for two of those Superbowls in Ray Rice and John Taylor. He really was part of a superstar team on both sides of the ball.

When people talk about the greatest players of all time Montana, Rice and Ronnie Lott will be at the top end of the argument for the best ever at their position.

hell they are all in the argument for greatest player ever hard to blame montana for that though and the cowboys team at the time where similarly stacked.

in fairness bradys had some really good teams around him as well and rodgers has had plenty of weapons outside of this year as well

JCTO

This guy sums it up for me:

http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/football/ci_25033750/greatest-qb-debate-is-pointless

The greatest of all time.

It's a phrase that has been uttered countless times in the sports world. They are words that have been the basis of endless debate and fueled many a war of words.

Commentary

But what does it mean? How does one define who is the best at anything?

Yes, it's a subjective argument. You'd be hard-pressed to ever find a conclusive answer to what or who is the greatest of all time in any topic.

Yet it continues to spring up in the sports world, most notably around times of championship games, with comparisons of players abound. And nowhere is the question of the greatest more bandied about than in the NFL, especially between two the league's most prominent players.

Is Peyton Manning the best quarterback of his generation? Is Tom Brady a superior signal caller?

One side will look to individual accolades -- Manning's four MVPs are superior to Brady's one -- while the other will claim team superiority has more heft, marking Brady's three Super Bowl wins to Manning's one a higher achievement.

The latter metric gives Trent Dilfer an edge over Dan Marino. Most Valuable Player awards and statistical achievements point to Brett Favre as the greatest quarterback ever, though most football aficionados would scoff at such remarks.

If Manning picks up a second Super Bowl ring on Sunday, does that change his legacy that drastically? Sure, it's an undeniably outstanding achievement, but his career is filled with plenty of those.

These are arguments that rage on.

But they're pointless debates. What sports fans need to recognize is simply greatness, not search for the greatest.

It's true that many so-called New England Patriots fans have a hard time even admitting Manning is in the same class as Brady. "Just look at the Super Bowl rings," they cackle. Such an ignorant view of things will cause them to miss out on watching not only one of the greatest quarterbacks in history, but two of them, playing both in the same era -- and often in crucial games.

The need to definitively prove your guy is better than the other guy is maddening. What's the point? Fanatics will never back down from their sides of the debate, often twisting facts to simply boost their side of the narrative.

Why make sports a war of statistics, a battle of numbers? Unitas, Montana, Marino, Brady, Manning, Rodgers. ... Aren't they all greats? Why try to quantify one as more crucial than any other, especially in arguments that span different eras of any given sport?

Enjoy the great players, the great coaches. The only contests that matter are the ones that happen on the fields, the gyms, the rinks. Those venues are where winners will be crowned, not in debates.

But in the grand scheme of things, the greatest of all-time debate is, well, the greatest sports debate of all-time.

eagle eye

That article is a bit old TO, Brady has two MVP awards since 2010 and another Superbowl ring as well as another Superbowl appearance. A lot has happened since he wrote that.

eagle eye

eagle eye wrote: »

That article is a bit old TO, Brady has two MVP awards since 2010 and another Superbowl ring as well as another Superbowl appearance. A lot has happened since he wrote that.

point remains though its massively subjective and its arguable that there is no greatest of all time

eagle eye

Axl Large Liquor wrote: »

point remains though its massively subjective and its arguable that there is no greatest of all time

Well it is subjective. I think it comes down to how important you think winning Superbowls are and how important playoff football is when rating a QB.

Personally for me you have to be able to win consistently in the playoffs to be considered a great one. Peyton Manning has failed too often for me in that category so that rules him out as it does Jim Kelly, Dan Marino and many more.

Aaron Rodgers has a lot to prove in that category too but he still has time on his side.

I have Brady as the GOAT right now and Aaron Rodgers as the best I've ever seen in the regular season to this point.

For me you have to be able to close games out when it matters and for me that means in divisional games where the playoffs are on the line late in the season and in the playoffs of course.

Up until Brady won his fourth ring I had Montana as the GOAT but Brady for me is better when you consider how poorly the receivers he has played with fared when they went elsewhere in the league.

Vandango

keano_afc wrote: »

I'd take Rodgers over Brady any day of the week. Especially Sunday.

I'll take Brady over Rodgers when you really have to win, the time legends are made and remembered = in the post season and in superbowls.

No not flukey wins like in 2007 or the defense winning a ring for Wilson in 2013 ect.

The greatest like Brady & Montana consistently won all year around.

JCTO

eagle eye wrote: »

That article is a bit old TO, Brady has two MVP awards since 2010 and another Superbowl ring as well as another Superbowl appearance. A lot has happened since he wrote that.

You clearly missed the main point of the article.

eagle eye

JCTO wrote: »

You clearly missed the main point of the article.

I didn't, I'm just pointing out how old it is.

I don't agree with it anyways because what that says is to just lie down and don't bother about something you like to discuss. I like to discuss it from time to time and I've got my views like anybody else.

If you want to have the view that they are all greats and it doesn't matter then that is fine for you but not for me.

Vandango

Vandango wrote: »

I'll take Brady over Rodgers when you really have to win, the time legends are made and remembered = in the post season and in superbowls.

No not flukey wins like in 2007 or the defense winning a ring for Wilson in 2013 ect.

The greatest like Brady & Montana consistently won all year around.

but point is brady and montana have consistently had good teams around them also i don't know what constitutes a "lucky" Super Bowl there are surprising plays every year in the playoffs i think you have to have an element luck to win any Super Bowl

Billy86

Copied from the other thread...

Vandango wrote: »

Nobody's disputing the Brady-Gronk connection and what a weapon it is. The point I and others are making is, regardless of Gronk, regardless of Moss, Brady has been doing it all his career, no matter who he has had on the field.

By the numbers, Brady had a big spike in 2007 when Moss arrived, and in 2010 when Gronk arrived. Gronks healthy seasons have been 2010, 2011 and 2014, Moss was there in 2007... Brady has hit 100 QBR on three of these occasions, and never has outside of it. Rodgers only season below 100 was his first year starting in 2008. He has never had an option like Moss (probably the most dangerous WR of all time) or Gronk (arguably the biggest mismatch in NFL history)... all of his WRs combined have a total of 1 All Pro selection over his entire career (Nelson last season, who is out all year) and 5 pro bowls (Driver in 2010, Jennings in 2010 & 2011, and both Cobb and Nelson last season).

Brady has been doing it his whole career, but he has been doing it better with Gronk or Moss there (as would anyone) than without. Rodgers has been doing it just as good, but without those options.

Not a shot on Brady at all, just pointing out that at his best he has had some guys on a level of elite that Rodgers has not.

Vandango wrote: »

Let's not forget that Moss was in the twilight of his career when he became a Pat. His season record of 23 TD's might have been 30, if Brady got Moss when he was in his peak.

As for Gronk, Brady only had a healthy Gronk in 2010 and in 2014..

Randy Moss was 30 when he went to the Patriots.

Gronk missed one game last year, a little over half the season in 2013 and 4 games in 2012. 2011 was probably his best season, no sure why you left that out.

I don't ever remember Rodgers ever starting a season with his top 6 WR's gone which = 94% of his pass catchers gone from the offense. How many 7th rd draft picks has Rodgers turned into stars? I know Brady has done it a lot.

And RE: O lines, over the last 5 seasons, Rodgers has been sacked on avg 33 times a year. For Brady it's been an avg of 29 times a year. So when you consider that Rodgers holds onto the ball much longer and Brady is always very fast at making his reads and releasing the ball. Then Brady's sack ratio is worse whiich also suggests his O line isn't the best.

We've also have 3 rookies playing in the interior line this year and while some have praised them. They're only doing well because Brady is lighting fast in getting rid of the ball. If Brady moved around like Rodgers or held the ball for as long, I've no doubt he probably be murdered on the field.

You forgot to mention that in 2013 Brady had his running backs pick up over 2,000 yards at 4.7 YPC. Compare that with Rodgers RBs in 2012, who picked up 1,314 yards at 3.6 YPC. Bradys line in 2013 was poor, but Rodgers in 2012 was one of the worst I have ever seen in front of an established QB - they could not contain a three man rush more often than not, which is insane. As I already said, his WRs ranked number 5, 6 and 7 in terms of drop rates for guys with 45+ catches that same year.

Also, check out Greg Jennings career since Rodgers stopped throwing to him. Or James Jones... not good enough for the Giants or even the Raiders... yet Rodgers has him looking like one of the best in the business. So I would not use that avenue if I were you, in honesty.

About sacks, you are in the same breath blaming Rodgers for the sacks he takes and absolving Brady of blame for the ones he takes (indeed crediting him by condemning his line). The fact is Rodgers lines have been average at best, and often times terrible, up until the start of last season - when he was sacked less than 20 other QBs, and though he holds onto the ball longer he is one of, if not the, best at escaping pressure in the league (Wilson and Ben being the other two). When you are able to drop 7 into coverage and know you are more likely than not to beat the offensive line on a four man rush without any running game to worry about, it makes things so much harder for the QB - which was Rodgers situation all too often until recently. There is a reason he was 60-odd yards off being GBs leading rusher from 2010-12.

Outside of Bulaga, the Packers highest draft pick in the offensive line was in the fourth round at number 109. Rookies can play well, as show in in GB by Bakhtiari (4th round), Barclay (UDFA) and Linsley (5th round) in recent years at GB. Though which of Vollmer, Solder or Kline are rookies? Because all three have started every game for NE so far. It's not like you are playing three at the same time, from what I can see.

Billy86

Vandango wrote: »

When one guy is 72.2% and the other is 72.4%, you tend to round it down to the nearest whole number. If it was above .5 you would round it up ect. But work away and make a big deal about a 0.2% difference if you want. Afaic, they're both at 72%.

I did not round up or down for percentage, just like I did not for YPA. Funny that you did not take any issue with the YPA.

Rodgers has 2 more TD's and I'm guessing because he's played one more game than Brady. Rodgers stats are brilliant, but the stats tell us that Brady is completing 10 more passes a game more than him, for the same completion ratio and for more yards and with 0 int's.

Yes, like I said Brady also had about 100 yards and a TD in junk time vs Jacksonville - a situation that Rodgers would have been pulled in. Again it is contradictory to say Rodgers has 2 more TDs simply because he has played an extra game, and in the same breath boast about Brady having 15 more pass attempts per game (and more in total).

JCTO

eagle eye wrote: »

I didn't, I'm just pointing out how old it is.

But my point is stats are irrelevant to his whole point.

I don't agree with it anyways because what that says is to just lie down and don't bother about something you like to discuss. I like to discuss it from time to time and I've got my views like anybody else.

I nor the article said you can't discuss it. He shared his view on why these debates are pointless in the sense there is basically never going to be a middle ground or winner.

If you want to have the view that they are all greats and it doesn't matter then that is fine for you but not for me.

I have no idea where you are getting this from when it comes to his article or point of view or from anyone in here really. In fact I have made the point more than once that they are all great. The reason for the article was to show how endless these debates become.

Hazys

Tom Brady >>>>>>>> Your face

SameOleJay

Rodgers
Brady
Ben

I'm pretty certain on both that being the order of the top three, and that being by something of a distance the best 3 in the league. There's plenty of others I love (Ryan, Romo, Rivers etc) but those 3 seem a clear cut above to me.

Beefy78

Putin wrote: »

Keeping it short, Rodgers did nothing against the Seahawks in 2 games last season. Brady did more in just one game, the biggest game of them all - the superbowl. He destroyed one of the best defenses of all time in the 4th quarter the kind of drives Rodgers or Manning couldn't put together against the Seahawks and with Chancellor on the field.

If Rodgers can play at the lever Brady is playing at at 38, maybe he might enter the discussion. But right now the GOAT debate is just between Montana & Brady. And Rodgers would need to seriously improve where it really matters - the postseason.

Wasn't Rodgers operating with one leg for one of those games, massively limiting his mobility which is arguably his greatest strength? He then made mincemeat of the Seahawks in week two this year.

StringerBell

If his mobility was his greatest strength he certainly won't get into the all time conversation.

Brady is not exactly the most mobile QB, probably Manning is the only one I can think of that is less mobile

HigginsJ

Is Eli a HOF worthy QB & how long will it take him to get in if he is?

He is probably one of the hardest QB's to gauge as his regular season career is mediocre but he has had 2 incredible post season runs & 2 of the most clutch throws in SB history. He hold pretty much every Giants passing record but that is more an indication of his longevity and the era we live in.

If you don't think he is HOF worthy what does he have to do, another ring? A MVP quality season or 2?

My opinion is that if he finished today he would get in eventually during a particularly weak year or something. No chance he is a 1st or 2nd ballot HOF.

huey1975

Drew Brees >> Eli manning
Discuss!

HigginsJ

HigginsJ wrote: »

Is Eli a HOF worthy QB & how long will it take him to get in if he is?

He is probably one of the hardest QB's to gauge as his regular season career is mediocre but he has had 2 incredible post season runs & 2 of the most clutch throws in SB history. He hold pretty much every Giants passing record but that is more an indication of his longevity and the era we live in.

If you don't think he is HOF worthy what does he have to do, another ring? A MVP quality season or 2?

My opinion is that if he finished today he would get in eventually during a particularly weak year or something. No chance he is a 1st or 2nd ballot HOF.

I wouldn't vote him in and I think it's to late for him at this stage. He may get in on account of having two rings but I don't think he's close to being a hall of famer

huey1975

huey1975 wrote: »

Drew Brees >> Eli manning
Discuss!

Clearly. in my opinion it's not close

Billy86

HigginsJ wrote: »

Is Eli a HOF worthy QB & how long will it take him to get in if he is?

He is probably one of the hardest QB's to gauge as his regular season career is mediocre but he has had 2 incredible post season runs & 2 of the most clutch throws in SB history. He hold pretty much every Giants passing record but that is more an indication of his longevity and the era we live in.

If you don't think he is HOF worthy what does he have to do, another ring? A MVP quality season or 2?

My opinion is that if he finished today he would get in eventually during a particularly weak year or something. No chance he is a 1st or 2nd ballot HOF.

I like Eli, but putting him in the HOF would cheapen it incredibly. I would say a good 2-3 MVP quality seasons, but then again I think the QB position is extremely over-represented in the HOF to begin with. You should be legitimately one of the best ever in your position at the time of your retirement in my opinion to make it, not just an above average guy who had two great months of January where your defense was also playing absolutely lights out.

Billy86

Axl Large Liquor wrote: »

Clearly. in my opinion it's not close

I... think he was joking? Right?

Mr. Guappa

If I'm starting a franchise in the morning I want Rodgers.
If I've a one-off game in the morning I want Brady.

Brady has the regular season stats, the post season stats, the rings and the longevity. Rodgers has all the tools to be in the discussion for GOAT in 10 years time, but he has to put together a serious body of work to overtake Brady.

Morrison J

Brady is the current greatest ever imo but I expect Rodgers to pass him out once he gets another ring or two.

I would rank current qbs legacys

1.brady
2.manning
3.brees
4.big Ben
5.rodgers
6.eli
7.romo
8.rivers
9.wilson

Can't think of anyone else worth listing yet

Billy86

Brees and Ben above Rodgers?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Brees and Ben above Rodgers?

Body of work for now I would imagine Rodgers passed them out

Billy86

Axl Large Liquor wrote: »

Body of work for now I would imagine Rodgers passed them out

I could understand Brees in regards to bulk stats etc; still can't agree on Ben though!

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

I could understand Brees in regards to bulk stats etc; still can't agree on Ben though!

I'm a big Big Ben fan in fairness but for now I would have him ahead I was uming and awing about that one though

eagle eye

Morrison J wrote: »

Brady is the current greatest ever imo but I expect Rodgers to pass him out once he gets another ring or two.

This exactly, Rodgers becomes the GOAT with a ring less than Tom Brady imo. He has to get another two to make it there though, if he doesn't get anymore rings he will just be another great QB.

Son Of A Vidic

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

If I'm starting a franchise in the morning I want Rodgers.
If I've a one-off game in the morning I want Brady.

Brady has the regular season stats, the post season stats, the rings and the longevity. Rodgers has all the tools to be in the discussion for GOAT in 10 years time, but he has to put together a serious body of work to overtake Brady.

I agree and for me it boils down to consistency and there's nobody in the league past or present, that has done it so much in the regular season and post season, the way Brady has. I witnessed the Montana era and I was nearly a Niners fan because of him. And I never thought I see another QB surpass what he did so brilliantly, but I have. Brady has smashed all his records and bar an unexplainable drop from Assante Samuel (2007), when he had his two hands on the ball, a freak catch from Tyree (2007) and maybe having a fit Gronk (2011) and Brady could have 6 rings. Up until February I had Montana & Brady neck & neck. And while Brady had more & better numbers during his career, I didn't want to discard Montana who was the first player I idolised years ago. But Brady's amazing performance against the Seahawks ended the debate for me.

I thought the 85 Bears were the most dominant defense I'd ever seen, but the Seahawks defense in recent years have surpassed them. They destroyed Manning in 2013 Superbowl but in 2014 Brady did what no other QB in the league has done - when it really mattered he just carved them up. And here was a QB doing it 10 years after his last win, which has never happened before. It just demonstrated the longevity and consistence of Brady. And he did what Montana never did, he won his rings without elite WR's and with different WR's corps. Brady won his rings irrespective of who he was throwing the ball to, he didn't have a Moss or a Gronk in 2002,2003, or in 2004.

For me, to be in the GOAT discussion you need to have consistently done it in the regular season and post season and I believe that applies to any sport. I look at snooker, Jimmy White (along with O'Sullivan) is probably the most naturally gifted player to ever grace the game. One of the greatest? Absolutely. The GOAT? No way and Why? Well because he just lost too many big games, he lost too many World finals, lost his nerve and cracked and to be a GOAT you can't have a record of doing that.

That's how I view Peyton, undoubtedly one of the greatest QB's ever, but he gets nowhere near Montana or Brady. If Brady retired tomorrow, the only QB in the league that I would be interested or want is Rodgers. But if he is going to be in a GOAT discussion someday, he needs to do more consistent work in the postseason. In Brady, I've never seen a QB who has consistently displayed so much ice in his veins and so much mental strength. From the game where he first shocked The Greatest Show On Turf, to last February's amazing SB where he neutered The Legion Of Boom. Let's also not forget one very unique thing, Brady was a 6th round 199th pick in the draft. If there's one QB whose story and career is going to have a Hollywood movie made about him, it's TB12.

Hulk Hands

eagle eye wrote: »

Up until Brady won his fourth ring I had Montana as the GOAT but Brady for me is better when you consider how poorly the receivers he has played with fared when they went elsewhere in the league.

Fairly sure ive seen you call Brady the GOAT at least a couple of times before January? I remember because at the time I disagreed (probably don't anymore)

eagle eye

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Fairly sure ive seen you call Brady the GOAT at least a couple of times before January? I remember because at the time I disagreed (probably don't anymore)

Ah you get carried away sometimes after a big performance from the man but if you talked to me when I wasn't watching football I would have told you that Montana is still the GOAT up until Brady won his fourth ring. I'm a Patriots fan and I love Tom Brady so I'm going to get carried away after I see him put in a clutch performance and pull a win out that very few others are capable of doing.

LuckyLloyd

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=5449

I always think this article is a good one for those interested in this kind of debate. Basically, teammates matter a great deal.